Imagine a disease spreading across the globe, killing mostly middle-aged people or leaving them chronically disabled. Then one day researchers come up with a drug that can prevent some of the disease’s nastier effects. You would think the world’s ageing public would be eternally grateful.
The disease does exist. It is called tobacco addiction. The drug too is real and in animal tests has prevented lung damage that leads to emphysema. But the inventors have received no bouquets. Prevailing medical opinion seems to be that the drug is a mere sideshow, distracting smokers from the task of quitting. Another experimental drug, which could protect smokers against cancer, is also viewed with suspicion because it could give smokers an excuse not to quit.
On the face of it these responses make sense. It is ingrained in society that smokers have only themselves to blame and their salvation lies in a simple act of will. If they will not quit smoking, they cannot expect help from anyone else.
But this logic is flawed. Check a survey of smokers and you find two-thirds want to give up and one-third will have tried in the previous year. Yet, even with nicotine gum, patches and drugs to ease the ordeal, the quit rate is still under 10 percent. In the UK, the proportion of people who smoke has not fallen in a decade. Tobacco has a powerful grip, and many smoker are caught in a trap they cannot escape: they have a disease like any other and deserve the chance to reduce the harm it does to them.
This reasoning is hard for many to swallow. It certainly leaves governments and anti-smoking groups in a bind. They are happy to pay lip service to methods for reducing harm—of which three are a growing number—but they are slow to create policies based upon them. European Union countries, for example, took years to even consider regulating the dangerous additives in cigarettes.
One fear is that methods for reducing harm will dilute the message that tobacco kills—especially when given to youngsters. But that message won’t change, in the present case, even if both drugs turn out to work in human trials, they would not protect against all the deadly side effects of smoking. And the drugs do not have to be free to all. They could be available only on prescription for people who doctors believe genuinely cannot give up.
There are things that no drug aimed at harm reduction will ever be able to do. It will not cut passive smoking or stop tobacco companies persuading millions of teenagers to light up. For these reasons all other ways to counter smoking must continue, from banning tobacco advertising to raising tobacco taxes. But it would be a mistake to ignore the harm reduction measures. For those who are not convinced, forget smokers for a moment. Preventive drugs could also help non-smokers, especially those working long hours as, say, musicians and bar staff in smoky rooms. Should we deny them too?
1. The statement “But the inventors have received no bouquets” implies that ______.
2. The author argues that ______.
3. The author is trying to emphasize that the drugs ______.
4. The drugs, according to the author, are expected ______.
5. We can draw a conclusion from the passage that ______.
问题1选项
A.the drugs have received suspicion
B.the inventors just presented a sideshow
C.it will take time for the public to accept the new drug
D.the effects of the drug need further test on human trials
问题2选项
A.no smoker is expected to succeed in quitting
B.smokers deserve the harm smoking does to them
C.smokers with resolution to stop smoking need help
D.smokers could succeed with strong resolution to give up
问题3选项
A.are mainly aimed at youngsters
B.should be available to smokers free of charge
C.will not change the message that tobacco kills
D.help regulate the dangerous additives in cigarettes
问题4选项
A.to perform preventive functions in non-smokers
B.to reduce the number of passive smokers
C.to enforce the combat against smoking
D.all of the above
问题5选项
A.with innovative drugs smokers can still enjoy personal gratifications and stay healthy
B.if a drug can save lives, we shouldn’t withhold it without good reason
C.the battle against smoking is far from won
D.there will be a safe way to smoke
第1题:A
第2题:C
第3题:C
第4题:C
第5题:C
第1题:
【选项释义】
The statement “But the inventors have received no bouquets” implies that ______. “但发明者没有收到花束”的声明暗示了______。
A. the drugs have received suspicion A. 这些药物已经受到怀疑
B. the inventors just presented a sideshow B. 发明家只是展示了一种杂耍
C. it will take time for the public to accept the new drug C. 公众接受这种新药需要一段时间
D. the effects of the drug need further test on human trials D. 药物的效果需要进一步的人体试验
【考查点】语义推测题。
【解题思路】根据题干可以定位答案所在区域为第二段。根据第二段第四句至最后一句内容“但这些发明家没有收到任何花束。流行的医学观点似乎是,这种药物只是一种杂耍,让吸烟者无法完成戒烟的任务。另一种可以保护吸烟者不患癌症的实验性药物也受到怀疑,因为它可能给吸烟者一个不戒烟的借口。”由此可知这些发明家发明的药物受到人们的怀疑,所以正确答案为A选项。
【干扰项排除】
B选项:“发明家只是展示了一种杂耍”,根据第二段第四句“流行的医学观点似乎是,这种药物只是一种杂耍,让吸烟者无法完成戒烟的任务”可知原文说的是药物是一种杂耍,该选项属于张冠李戴;
C选项:“公众接受这种新药需要一段时间”,原文没有提及,属于无中生有;
D选项:“药物的效果需要进一步的人体试验”,原文没有提及,属于无中生有。
第2题:
【选项释义】
The author argues that ______. 作者认为______。
A. no smoker is expected to succeed in quitting A. 预计没有烟民会成功戒烟
B. smokers deserve the harm smoking does to them B. 吸烟者应该受到吸烟所造成的伤害
C. smokers with resolution to stop smoking need help C. 决心戒烟的烟民需要帮助
D. smokers could succeed with strong resolution to give up D. 吸烟者可以通过坚定的决心戒烟成功
【考查点】观点态度题。
【解题思路】结合选项和题干定位答案所在区域为第四段。根据第四段最后一句“烟草具有强大的控制力,许多吸烟者陷入了无法逃脱的陷阱:他们和其他人一样患有疾病,理应有机会减少疾病对他们的危害”可知作者认为烟草具有强大的控制力,而烟民戒烟也和患有疾病的普通人一样,需要外界的帮助,如药物等,所以正确答案为C选项。
【干扰项排除】
A选项:“预计没有烟民会成功戒烟”,根据第四段第二句“然而,即使使用尼古丁口香糖、贴片和药物来缓解痛苦,戒烟率仍然低于10%”可知戒烟率虽然低,但不代表没有烟民会成功戒烟,该选项属于曲解原文;
B选项:“吸烟者应该受到吸烟所造成的伤害”,根据第四段最后两句“在英国,吸烟人口比例十年来没有下降。烟草具有强大的控制力,许多吸烟者陷入了无法逃脱的陷阱:他们和其他人一样患有疾病,理应有机会减少疾病对他们的危害”可知该选项属于曲解原文;
D选项:“吸烟者可以通过坚定的决心戒烟成功”,根据第三段倒数第二句“社会上根深蒂固的观念是,吸烟者只能怪自己,他们的救赎就在于一个简单的意志行动”,再结合第四段第一句“但这种逻辑是有缺陷的”,以及后文说的戒烟率低于10%,可知戒烟仅有决心不一定能成功,该选项属于曲解原文。
第3题:
【选项释义】
The author is trying to emphasize that the drugs ______. 作者试图强调药物_____。
A. are mainly aimed at youngsters A. 主要针对青少年
B. should be available to smokers free of charge B. 应该免费提供给吸烟者
C. will not change the message that tobacco kills C. 不会改变烟草致人死亡的信息
D. help regulate the dangerous additives in cigarettes D. 帮助控制香烟中的危险添加剂
【考查点】判断推理题。
【解题思路】根据题干可以定位答案所在区域为第六段。根据第六段前两句“一种担心是,减少烟草危害的方法会淡化烟草致人死亡的信息——尤其是对青少年而言。但在目前的情况下,这一信息不会改变,即使这两种药物在人体试验中都有效,它们也不能预防吸烟的所有致命副作用”可知作者强调该药物不会改变烟草致人死亡的信息,所以正确答案为C选项。
【干扰项排除】
A选项:“主要针对青少年”,根据第六段第一句“一种担心是,减少烟草危害的方法会淡化烟草致人死亡的信息——尤其是对青少年而言”,可知该选项属于曲解原文;
B选项:“应该免费提供给吸烟者”,根据第六段第三句“而且药物并不一定要对所有人免费”可知该项属于曲解原文;
D选项:“帮助控制香烟中的危险添加剂”,根据第五段最后一句“例如,欧盟国家花了数年时间才考虑管制香烟中的危险添加剂”可知该选项内容与题干无关,属于出处错位。
第4题:
【选项释义】
The drugs, according to the author, are expected ______. 据作者说,这些药物预计会_____。
A. to perform preventive functions in non-smokers A. 对不吸烟者起到预防作用
B. to reduce the number of passive smokers B. 减少被动吸烟的数量
C. to enforce the combat against smoking C. 迫使抵制吸烟的斗争继续下去
D. all of the above D. 以上都是
【考查点】判断推理题。
【解题思路】根据题干可以定位答案所在区域为最后一段。根据最后一段第三句“出于这些原因,从禁止烟草广告到提高烟草税,所有其他抵制吸烟的方式都必须继续下去”可推测出该药物将会反对吸烟的斗争继续进行下去,所以正确答案为C选项。
【干扰项排除】
A选项:“对不吸烟者起到预防作用”,根据最后一段最后一句“预防性药物也可以帮助不吸烟者,特别是那些长时间工作的人,比如音乐家和在烟雾弥漫的房间里工作的酒吧职员”可知这些药物会有帮助,但没有提到预防作用;
B选项:“减少被动吸烟的数量”,根据最后一段第二句“它不会减少被动吸烟,也不会阻止烟草公司说服数百万青少年吸烟”可知该选项属于曲解原文;
D选项:“以上都是”,根据解题思路及干扰项排除的内容,可知该选项属于曲解原文。
第5题:
【选项释义】
We can draw a conclusion from the passage that ______. 我们可以从文章中得出这个结论:_____。
A. with innovative drugs smokers can still enjoy personal gratifications and stay healthy A. 有了创新药物,吸烟者仍然可以享受个人满足和保持健康
B. if a drug can save lives, we shouldn’t withhold it without good reason B. 如果一种药物可以挽救生命,我们不应该没有充分的理由就拒绝它
C. the battle against smoking is far from won C. 反对吸烟的斗争还远未取得胜利
D. there will be a safe way to smoke D. 将会有一个更安全的吸烟方式
【考查点】主旨大意题。
【解题思路】文章主要讲了能预防吸烟带来的不良后果的药物。文章提到这种药物受到很多质疑,并且一一回答了它们。文章最后一段提到有些东西是任何药物都无法做到的,所以呼吁人们继续参与到反对吸烟的活动中去。由此可知人们的反对吸烟的斗争还远未取得胜利,因此正确答案为C选项。
【干扰项排除】
A选项:“有了创新药物,吸烟者仍然可以享受个人满足和保持健康”,根据最后一段第一句“有些事情是任何旨在减少伤害的药物都无法做到的”可知该选项属于曲解原文;
B选项:“如果一种药物可以挽救生命,我们不应该没有充分的理由就拒绝它”,原文没有提及,属于无中生有;
D选项:“将会有一个更安全的吸烟方式”,根据最后一段文章说反对吸烟的活动需要继续下去,可知该选项属于曲解原文。